AND SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE... WELCOME TO "SIN CITY"

Ooh, ooh ooh! Look, another historic moment. I HAVE FINALLY WATCHED SIN CITY. I have been banging on about this for years. How I  didn’t get round to it before is virtually incomprehensible – even to me, and I’m usually quite good at figuring out why I haven’t done things. This was the last film remaining that Quentin Tarantino (yes him again, if you’re not a fan, deal with it) is vaguely associated with from a directoral (is this a word? Mom?) stance that I hadn’t seen yet. Now I have. The world can rest in peace – as it were. The film is of course technically a film by Robert Rodriguez who is apparently a great friend of Quentin Tarantino’s. Quentin Tarantino is a guest director here along with Frank Miller (the writer of the comics the film was adapted from) who is cited as director. Now, fair warning. You know Rodriguez. You know Tarantino. Yes there is violence. Yes there are classic “old school” movie genres running through a very, very strange terrain. Yes, the films are very much “boys toys” as it were, what with the imagery and that. Now, as you also know, I lap this stuff up by the bucketful and ask for seconds. Incomprehensibly to me, some people do not. If you are one of those people I fail to comprehend, you can easily pass on Sin City. I won’t blame you. I’ll just be sad you’re missing a brilliant film.

Welcome to Sin City. The name alone holds a clue. I said to look out for “old school” ladies and gents, and the “school” we’re in this round is film noir. A world where the dames are beautiful and deadly, the guys are either hardened good guys with one foot in the underworld or dastardly villains. It is night time, it is cold and we roam the even colder streets, trying to get to know the inhabitants of the city. We have a scary giant who is looking to avenge the only woman who ever showed him affection. We have a cop who puts his entire reputation on the line to save a little girl from a paedophile. We have a hit man after his next buck. And of course, we have a vigilante cop. All these characters come together in the “sewage pit” known as Sin City in a tale as dark as the night itself…

Before you say anything, trust me, there are more reasons than one for this film to have become so popular. I am at a tiny bit of a loss as to interpreting them in conjunction with their original “manuscripts” i.e. the comics. Of course I won’t even get started on the actual images themselves as Sin City’s images have become pretty iconic in their own right. Suffice it to say that the mood of the film very much matches the style of the images. It is very, very much like a comic book “come to life” as it were. So there you go. If you like comic books, that alone should spur you on. That and the rather marvellous way all the seemingly disparate stories come together. I promise you, you will NOT see that one coming.

But then of course there is the film noir side of things. Now, I’m not quite sure what the general opinion is of film noir. I have a sneaking suspicion it is regarded as rather passé. And it is true that simple binaries of black and white, good and bad are rather outdated these days. Understandably so, we have come to terms with the fact that the world is more of a “grey” place then black and white and this is reflected in everything, be it our entertainment or our politics. But I don’t know. There is – go on, admit it – a part in all of us which, when left unchecked, paints the world in those two colours. Really “evil” baddies that can be destroyed by the “good guy”. A good guy with some token “black” in him – this is Sin City after all, you can never completely escape the evil in the air – but whose heart is basically set on doing the right thing. Go on. You like it. Admit it to yourself if not to me. And go and watch the darned movie already. You have half a hundred reasons at least by now… 

THE TRUE STORY OF A TRUE LEGEND: CHE (PART 1 AND 2)

Ok, moral dilemma. If you’re talking about a single project that is technically made up of two films, are you cheating by writing a single post about it? Yes, you heard it, blogging is indeed fraught with pitfalls such as this. But I reckon if the post is both long enough and written well enough neither Soderberg would mind. My first chance to see this wonderful film came along a few years back during the Istanbul film festival. I missed it – both of them. And this fact has bugged me ever since. Luckily, discerning institutions like my university library possess DVD copies of things like that so recently that little obsession was laid to rest. The experience was so fulfilling, the story so vivid and the film itself so entirely brilliant; I simply had to share it with you guys. So here goes.

So, Che is made up of two different films. Che Part 1 is basically the story of the Cuban uprising against the Batista regime. With great clarity and honesty we follow Che, from his first meeting with Fidel Castro and his getting involved in the movement to the jungles and Cuba. Hardships, war and loss of comrades are all par to the course. But well the rest, as they say, is history.

Che Part 2 is the story of another revolution, the attempted armed uprising in Bolivia where Che ultimately lost his life. Che resigns entirely from his life and family in Cuba and sets off to Bolivia to lead and support the communist movement there. However, the Cold War is taking hold, the stakes have grown considerably since Che last dabbled in those waters…  And neither the Bolivian jungle, nor the people who live in it are really as familiar as Che thinks they are…

Now, I have heard there was quite a bit of negative feeling as far as first impressions of thet film go. Ok, first there’s the political aspect and you can’t really have a serious film about Che without involving the politics – the man was all about politics after all. Secondly, there’s the violence. I have actually heard people almost refused to watch the film because it might be supporting violence and war etc. I don’t think these are the correct ways to look at these films. Let me explain.

First of all the politics. I mean you can think what you like of Che and the politics he supported. I won’t get into all that here, this is a cinema blog. But think what you will, Che was a very important historical figure. The political goings on of the era, both in Cuba and in Bolivia are definitely historical events that merit being remembered and depicted. And to be fair, Soderbergh does a damn fine job of depicting them without getting into the politics too much. I feel this must be the effect of the many documentary projects he has worked on over the years but I feel, just as it should be, that both films strike an excellent balance between the poetic and fictional and the documentary. They have the benefit of being open, no-nonsense depictions of what happened. No corners are cut; nothing is either prettified or demonised.  And this is, in itself a wonderful cinematic achievement. I think this alone is a good reason for watching both films, if only because such honest and clear depictions of such politically fraught events are very rare to find.

But don’t go thinking that this film is a dry old documentary or something. The first film is shot in a “dialectic” style, with Che being interviewed about his early years during a visit to the United States and uses flashbacks etc... The second is closer to a classical fiction film. But the performance from Benicio Del Toro is just so good… And the emotion of the time so well given… It almost knocks one speechless, it’s like time travel.    Again, just like the film in general, Che is portrayed as a man. Neither the completely perfect “saviour” some make him out to be nor the “demon” others claim he is. He is a man. With great talents, but faults that go with them. Who made great and successful military decisions but made mistakes as well. These films are, I feel, a wonderful chance to get a good perspective on these great historical events no matter what your personal or political feelings. We mustn’t forget that nothing is either completely good or completely evil in this world and Soderbergh’s two films, I feel, provide food for thought no matter what your convictions. 

FAST LIVING, WHEELING AND DEALING WITH "SNATCH"

I had heard a fair bit about this one. Mainly in connection to Brad Pitt’s Irish accent therein. And, as a side note, said accent is something to be marveled at. Even Irish friends gave it the seal of approval and trust me, they do not approve of every Irish accent going in cinemas these days. Now, I am not, generally speaking, a great fan of Guy Richie. I was actually surprised to see he directed this little number. But what can I tell you, apparently there is an exception to every rule and I just hit mine. Snatch is a fun and fast-paced piece of comedy – action, ideal to brighten up your evening after a tiring day at work…
Turkish (Jason Statham) is a boxing promoter. Only he isn’t a big-shots boxing promoter yet, so he mainly concentrates on illegal bare-knuckle boxing stuff. The whole thing’s a bit iffy ofcourse but Turkish has a few good fighters on so he makes a living. That and the slot-machine arcade. One fine day, however, the whole operation comes into a bit of jeopardy. It all starts with Turkish deciding to buy a new caravan (he lives in a caravan and the old one is… Well… Falling to pieces). Only he decides to buy said caravan from a group of Irish travelers who are passing through the area. This turns out to be a big mistake. What starts as a simple business transaction ends in his best fighter (who is due for a fight with the fighter of the local crime boss in a matter of days by the way. And like most crime bosses, “Bricktop” does not like this kind of nasty surprise) being hospitalized by the Irish Traveller’s equivalent of a bare-knuckle boxing champion (Brad Pitt and his impressive… Accent ;) ). Turkish can only really see one way out of the whole thing, getting the traveler to fight instead. But not only does the traveler not quite perform as he is asked / expected; an 84 carat diamond, three very inept robbers, a dog and a Russian ex-KGB agent enter the mix with alarming speed. It will take all his ingenuity – and possibly a miracle or two – for Turkish to get out of this mess alive…
Ok, so, the thing to remember is, don’t expect this film to actually change your life – if you see what I mean. It is, however, genuinely very good fun. It is classic British humor, one cannot avoid that fact, however it is mixed with a lot of action comedy, some old favorites (like the dumb robbers) and some new, innovative characters (like Brad Pitt’s character – I mean honestly, how often do you see Irish travelers as part of a big-budget movie?). In short, it is in my opinion a very successful mix. I mean, you will, in some places get a bit tired of the clichés; the ex-KGB agent for example. Or any number of Jews and Jewish stereotypes that, as you can imagine, come attached to the 84 carat diamond. And yet they all interact so brilliantly, the dialogue is so witty and the adrenaline flows so freely that, honestly, this film is one of those little numbers where even though there are some obvious little faults here and there, really, they are so easy to overlook… I know IMDB is not considered an “academic” source, but it is composed of people’s votes, which gives it a different sort of value. And if this film made it into the top 250 over there, there definitely is a reason for it… And I can see exactly what it is…

MIXED BAG WEEK! : THE USUAL SUSPECTS

As I watched this one I got to thinking, Good Heavens the 90’s sure was a decade for “hard ass” action gangster films. The action of the 50’s, only revved up a bit. Now, The Usual Suspects is just such a film. It is in many ways very much a “boy’s film”, however taken in context it would appeal to anyone who actually likes crime movies. You know, putting the clues together, reaching a surprising and bigger picture that sort of jazz. I was “sort of ok” with it until the end. I was even mentally debating whether or not I should put it in the blog or not – you know I only write about the films I actually enjoyed. There are plenty more “unwatched classics” in the pile… But then I hit the punch line – or rather the punch line hit me. Punched me, in fact. At the risk of sounding like an antique dealer, it has a beautiful finish, a true classic. Imitations of it were made for a reason…
Thrown together in a seemingly random line – up, five crooks are thrown into big business together. Mac Manus and Finster (Stephen Baldwin and Benicio Del Toro) two notorious partners in crime, Dean Kent, a dirty cop trying to “retire” onto the straight and narrow, Verbal Kent (Kevin Spacey) a crippled con artist and an explosives expert make a bizarre but effective gang. They are then offered what appears to be the opportunity of a lifetime. One job, highly dangerous. The odds of surviving are iffy. The money waiting at the end if you do, is enormous… Their “patron” is what can be called a legend of the underworld, and backing out is not an option… Make no mistake, our little gang is in “it” over their heads… The question is, in what exactly?
This is an intelligent movie. I loved its logic. The thing is, it’s basically an action movie, don’t expect it to change your life… Plus it’s an action movie from the 90’s so don’t expect it to contain flashy special effects either. It has nostalgia value though, on many levels. Then there’s Kevin Spacey the true master and star of the show. I loved Benicio Del Toro as well, but unfortunately we don’t see enough of him for my taste… It’s a classic for a reason as I like to say and the precursor of many “hard ass” bad guy movies to come… The thing is this one has a lot more intelligence and finesse than the said “hard ass” movies that were to come. I mean that punch line I mentioned. I have actually seen it “employed” before. Never so well though. A good one for a Saturday evening in…

A TRIP TO END ALL TRIPS OF ALL KINDS! "FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS"

Time for something a little more “hard hitting”. We centered around the emotional traumas of war, the 60’s and even the 20’s last week, but this week , I’m going for the “tough stuff”. Quentin Tarantino will feature heavily in the proceedings but before we get to him, I want to discuss another of my favorite directors. Terry Gilliam. Now, to say I love Monty Python would rank among the great understatements of the century… Terry Gilliam is the one in the band who did the animations. A graphic artist by trade he did those beautiful surreal animations that sort of wound out of one absurd shape into another without so much as a “by your leave” leaving the viewer completely befuddled as to where he began in the first place… In a strange way, I feel his work as a director has a lot of the same surreal quality… Not the photography but the storytelling… Did you watch Tideland? Or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus? Did you like either? If you said yes, you will LOVE Fear and Loathing…
Meet Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp). He was a newspaper reporter somewhere down the line. He still is, thanks to his large Samoan “attorney” Dr Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro). Dr. Gonzo and Duke do a lot of traveling together. They also get into A LOT of serious trouble together. They are usually loaded on every kind of drink and drug imaginable, and they surrender to the drugs, let it course through their bodies and take them wherever the f.ck it feels like. Most of these adventures are fuelled by Duke’s sporadic work as a journalist. And this work sends our weird duo to Las Vegas one fine morning. Mayhem being both Las Vegas’s and Duke and Gonzo’s middle names, the combination is… Highly combustible…
Ok, think of the Big Lebowski. It’s the same kind of film. It is most definitely not suitable for kids. And I hear some of you tut – tutting at the idea of a comedy about drugs saying “maybe we’ll give this one a miss”. No. Do NOT give this one a miss. As far as comedy is concerned, Mr. Gilliam’s talent as a director and Mr. Depp’s acting skills alone make for an unforgettable experience. Raoul Duke, his mannerisms, his way of speech… No wonder the character became a classic… Plus, guest appearances are abundant – Cameron Diaz, Toby Maguire, Christina Ricci… The quality of acting is breath-taking… You may have slight trouble distinguishing a beginning and an end – you would not be wrong. The film however, has content. You will be surprised to find out it even has a political message. Duke harks back to the 60’s when flower power ruled, when the world WAS going to become filled with peace and harmony… He criticizes America of the 80’s and what it became (Gilliam is the only American python so it’s appropriate really. Let’s not forget however that this was actually adapted from a short story by Hunter Tompson but I am yet to read that one…) Duke and Gonzo are degenerates – they are also caricatures… Maybe what Gilliam (and Tompson) are looking for is present with its absence so to speak… You really should watch and give it a good thought… I mean even the dudes at Cannes thought Mr. Gilliam could be worth a Golden Palm (he was nominated didn’t win it thought)Even if you don’t come up with any philosophical or political conclusions, I guarantee you one heck of a ride…